D&D 5E Warlord as master of the help action?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My suggested warlord would somewhat mirror the warlock - a short rest based class with maneuvers replacing spells and attack riders replacing invocations. So you could take an ability that let you make a single attack whenever you took the Help action, let an ally disengage as a react on a hit, apply disadvantage on a hit, etc.

 

[mellored]

make a single attack whenever you took the Help action, let an ally disengage as a react on a hit, apply disadvantage on a hit, etc.

I'll add that suggestion to the first post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The idea is that you don't need to give up your whole turn to help.

Just your bonus action.
Or maybe one attack.

Also, some people like playing pure support, like a pacifist cleric. So the is room for that too.

Right now, a fighter doesn't need to give up their whole turn to help, thanks to Action Surge. I still haven't seen Help used very much, because you can also attack with action surge.
You can also attack with your bonus action.

IMXP, giving up the option to attack for the option to Help leads to nobody using the option to Help. It's entirely possible my group is just too concerned about the damage dip / too self-interested / etc. to value the Help action, but I think it's a little more deep than that.

 

[mellored]

Right now, a fighter doesn't need to give up their whole turn to help, thanks to Action Surge.

Attacking 3 times with action surge is going to beat giving advantage 1 for 1 attack hands down.

It's entirely possible my group is just too concerned about the damage dip / too self-interested / etc. to value the Help action, but I think it's a little more deep than that.

It is deeper.

It's simply not worth while. Even a wizard who wants to support his team can likely do better attacking then helping someone else.

This aims to change that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What do people think of a warlord as someone who's really good with the help action?
Or at least as part of the warlord.

It'd potentially be a maneuver or something, but certainly couldn't be a class's whole schtick. So, definitely one small part of it, along with options like hp restoration, temp hps, action grants, re-rolls, damage bonuses, inspiration-referent mechanics, HD-powered tricks, downtime-prep-driven drills/strategies, etc, etc...

The Warlord had a lot going for it in 4e, but the bar in 5e is even higher. A lot of good things have been suggested, add this one to the list by all means.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Attacking 3 times with action surge is going to beat giving advantage 1 for 1 attack hands down.

It is deeper.

[/COLOR]It's simply not worth while. Even a wizard who wants to support his team can likely do better attacking then helping someone else.

This aims to change that.

Kind of what I'm saying is that it seems like it doesn't really change that. You're still choosing between helping (even a super-powered help) and attacking. Any time that you could take the help action you could take the attack action instead.

Bonus action? You're giving up TWF.
As an action? You're giving up your surge or your regular action.

The fix might be if you just make the effects of Help simply the effects of attacking (a rider on your attacks), which would mean that you're not giving up anything to help. But that could quickly get out of control without some careful attention.

 

[Lanefan]

The fix might be if you just make the effects of Help simply the effects of attacking (a rider on your attacks), which would mean that you're not giving up anything to help. But that could quickly get out of control without some careful attention.

How about:

"That's How It's Done!" - the first successful melee attack by a Warlord (or Marshal, or Caddy: WMC) each round grants an ally in line of sight +2 (or advantage?) on that character's next melee attack; this bonus disappears if not used within 1 round. If the WMC has no allies in sight this ability cannot be used. The affected ally is chosen by the WMC each time the ability triggers and if so desired the WMC can choose not to give the bonus to anyone.

Lanefan

 

[mellored]

Kind of what I'm saying is that it seems like it doesn't really change that. You're still choosing between helping (even a super-powered help) and attacking. Any time that you could take the help action you could take the attack action instead.

Depends on your ally.
But, the goal is balance, not to be flat out better.

Bonus action? You're giving up TWF.

Let me run the numbers..
Assuming 50% chance to hit... and the ally has a maul.

You lose 1d6+3 * .5 = 3.25 damage
Ally gains (2d6+3) .75 -5 = 2.5 + 0.3325 crit = 2.8325


Net result = loss of 0.4175 damage, but you gain +2 AC from a shield.
Worth while.

Let's check out both +int to damage and advantage.
(2d6+3+3) * .25 = 3.25 + 0.3325 crit = 3.5825

slightly more damage, and +2 AC.


And that's not getting into weather an ally has greatweapon master or crusader's mantle.


Adding much more and you run the risk of being too powerful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How about:

"That's How It's Done!" - the first successful melee attack by a Warlord (or Marshal, or Caddy: WMC) each round grants an ally in line of sight +2 (or advantage?) on that character's next melee attack; this bonus disappears if not used within 1 round. If the WMC has no allies in sight this ability cannot be used. The affected ally is chosen by the WMC each time the ability triggers and if so desired the WMC can choose not to give the bonus to anyone.

Lanefan

I'd compare this to the wild sorcerer's bend luck - this would be narrower, but more regular. It's a pretty solid foundation! Maybe even a little small for an entire class, but perfectly sized for a subclass feature.

 

[El Mahdi]

Advantage is supposed to be under exceptional circumstances. I could see it leading to advantage-spamming.

I've seen this said a lot, and by a lot of different people (so not picking on you specifically, Redhammer), but I'm curious:

Where did this idea come from?

The rules simply do not say, that Advantage should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. In fact, the DMG characterizes it as being used quite commonly - essentially any time a DM might feel there is a situation or factor that would impose Advantage (or Disadvantage). The prime example given is a Wizard running down a hallway with a couple of ogres lying in wait.

Hardly exceptional or extraordinary.

The purpose of Advantage/Disadvantage, design-wise, was to simplify the game and get away from having to track the plethora of numerical +/- bonuses/penalties.

That's it.

Nowhere in the rules does it say it's reserved for rare, grand, outstanding situations. I also don't recall this being presented in conversations by the designers, in errata, clarifications, or anywhere else.

Inspiration is supposed to be used for exceptional things, but the same is not said for simple Advantage.

I can understand not wanting to see the game spammed with Advantage - though I see no current threat of that happening, even with some of the ideas presented for the Warlord - but treating Advantage as this rare, special thing meant to be used sparely - that's not the guidance the rules give.

Where is this idea coming from?